In injury cases, plaintiffs sometimes attempt to assert a claim for negligent supervision. In A.H. v. Church of God, 297 Va. 604 (2019) a minor asserted a claim of sexual abuse against a church deacon. The allegation was that the church failed to properly supervise the deacon. The court noted that there is no duty of reasonable care imposed on an employer in the supervision of its employees under the circumstances at issue in Chesapeake & Potomac Tel. Co. of Va. v. Dowdy, 235 Va. 55, 61 (1988). The court seemed to further endorse the idea that Virginia simply does not recognize a claim or a cause of action for negligent supervision. In addition the court said that “A.H.’s allegations of negligence, therefore, cannot be predicated upon a standalone theory that the church defendants owed her a duty to supervise Don Billups”.
Negligent Supervision Personal Injury-Context
In Kellerman v. McDonough, 278 Va. 478 (2009), the court dealt with a slightly different issue. There a child was killed and a wrongful death action was brought against the parents where the child was left. In part, the theory was that the defendant parents violated the instructions from the custodial parents. They were that the child was not to be in a car driven by any young males. The defendant parents allegedly violated that. The court held that in this instance, the duties that do exist are a general duty of ordinary care to supervise and care for the victim.
As a result, it appears that there is a duty to exercise ordinary care to supervise in certain circumstances. However that does not give rise to an express claim or cause of action based upon negligent supervision.
Supervision Cases
In Whitfield v. Whittaker Memorial Hospital, 210 Va. 176, 182 (1969), a doctor was held vicariously liable for the actions of a nurse anesthetist over whom he had supervisory control, even though she was employed and paid by the hospital. In Blevins v. Sheshadri, 313 F.Supp. 2d 598 (W.D.Va. 2004), the court held that the supervisory role of a doctor made vicarious liability an issue for the jury even though the defendant testified he had not in fact been supervising the activity in question. In Morvillo v. Shenandoah Memorial Hospital, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68595, the court denied a motion for summary judgment, noting that the applicable Virginia licensing regulation requires that a CRNA be under the direction and supervision of a licensed physician when administering anesthesia. Based on these cases, there may be some hope for negligent supervision claims.
Call or contact us for a free consult. Also for more info on negligent supervision see the Wikipedia pages. Also see the post on this site dealing with vicarious liability issues.
